"Russia is our military-security choice; DCFTA is our economic choice., Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharyan.

Armenia was very negatively affected economically by the 2008 Georgia-Russia war, but as the fifth anniversary of the war approached it made a significant step forward in its relations with the European Union, and the sides have now agreed on the terms of an Association Agreement and a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DFCTA) agreement that many expect to provide an important stimulus to the Armenian economy.

Our correspondent Joseph d'Urso travelled to Yerevan to speak to Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister, Shavarsh Kocharyan about Armenian-EU releations, relations with Russia, and about war and peace in the Caucasus.

We are approaching the fifth anniversary of the Georgia-Russia war. What impact has this conflict had on Armenia?

The war had a serious negative economic effect on us because much of Armenia's trade takes place through Georgia - 75% to 80%, with 20-25% going through Iran. As you know, the borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey are closed, so our link to Georgia is very important. Through it we trade with the outside world.

Recently the possibility of reopening the railway link through Abkhazia, which would provide a direct link between Armenia and Russia, has been discussed. Is this important? Is there a prospect of it happening?

Of course it's important. It's much more effective to trade by railway, rather than by road. Whether it starts operating again doesn't depend on Armenia, it depends on Georgia, Abkhazia and Russia. If it starts running again it will be beneficial for all countries concerned. We would like it to be reopened, though whether that happens depends mainly on developments in the relationship between Russia and Georgia. All parties know that Armenia is interested in normalising relations.

What is the current status of Armenia's relationship with the EU?

Armenia is working towards an association agreement with the EU, and last month almost concluded negotiations toward a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA). These will be initialled in Vilnius later this year.

Is this a sign that Armenia has opted for a close relationship with the EU as apposed to Russia? The EU has made it clear that belonging to the DCFTA precludes membership of the Russian-led Eurasian Customs Union (ECU).

Of course Russia wants to make the Customs Union as large as possible, and it is important for them that Ukraine and Armenia at least declare that they want to be a part of it. The problem is that membership of the Customs Union is an obstacle to signing the DCFTA with the EU.

This is not a step in the membership process. There is no question of Armenia joining the EU, and people acknowledge that signing the association agreement or DCFTA is not necessarily a step towards becoming a member. This doesn't show that Armenian foreign policy is leaning more towards the EU or to Russia, it just shows Armenia sees more than one area of opportunity for economic development.

Russia still maintains a large military base in Gyumri in the west of Armenia. Is the decision to join the DCFTA not generating disapproval?

Russia is our military security choice, while the DCFTA is our economic choice. This is not a contradiction. In terms of security, Armenia is tied to Russia. We are a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). But we also actively cooperate with NATO. Among the members of CSTO, only Armenia has sent its peacekeeping forces to the NATO peacekeeping missions of different parts of the world.

However, we have never said that we want to become a member of NATO - we are a member of CSTO. It is almost the same when it comes to economics. We are ready to harmonise our legislation with that of the EU and to share deep economic ties. But we have never said we want to become a member - this is the difference between Armenia and some other 'Eastern Partnership' countries.

Do you think the Minsk Group, which is attempting to find a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, is still a viable project?

The problem is not the Minsk group, the problem is the position of Azerbaijan. In its actions it contradicts the Madrid Principles, which Azerbaijan has accepted as a basis for the negotiations. Co-Chairs of Minsk Group have two main functions - to help the sides come to an agreement, and to make sure the 1994 ceasefire isn't broken. We have had no progress in the first direction because of Azerbaijan.

An example of this is when the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in 2011 in Kazan, Russia. This time everyone accepted that there will be progress based on the agreement that had been reached before the meeting, but again Azerbaijan refused. It is obvious that there cannot be progress without confidence between parties.

How might that confidence be improved?

Confidence can be achieved by doing all the suggestions that are made by the co-chairs of the Minsk group. Firstly, withdraw snipers from the line of conflict. Secondly, try to prepare the societies for peace not war.

Bellicose speeches are made every day in Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijanis try to maintain enmity between the societies. One presidential statement said that all Armenians all over the world are enemies of Azerbaijan. Then there was the Safarov case, in which an Azerbaijani lieutenant murdered an Armenian officer in his sleep with an axe in Budapest and was subsequently released and pardoned in Baku. There is also the case of Akrim Aylisi, a writer who has been persecuted for writing about massacres of Armenians in Baku.

How much faith do you have in the co-chairs of the Minsk group (Russia, USA and France)?

All three co-chair countries are also permanent members of the UN Security Council, which gives me great faith in the process - you don't see this is any other conflict resolution group.

Unlike Azerbaijan Armenian sides share the proposals of the co-chair countries, but if the other party refuses to compromise, what should we do? From the Armenian perspective, Azerbaijan should act more responsibly and refuse from the position 'everything or nothing'.

So you think the Minsk group is here to stay?

Yes, it will continue. All three countries, as the permanent members of UN Security Council, are responsible for the stability and security of also our region. All three countries always speak about a peaceful resolution of  the conflict. Azerbaijan wants to avoid this format because it contributes to the peace maintenance. Next year it will be 20 years since the ceasefire started. It has been kept without international mediators or peacekeeping forces thanks to also Minsk Group Co-Chairmanship Format,as well as the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office.

What message would you give to people in the European Union about this conflict?

NKR is a well-established, democratic state, and I urge everybody to visit Artsakh and see the real situation. We also need humanitarian contacts between parties, which can facilitate the reduction of hatreds.

Should Europe be worried about the prospect of another war?

Of course they should be worried to some extent, but there are factors, Minsk format and membership of Armenia to the CSTO,  that  make war less possible. However, the co-chairs, EU and OSCE countries should condemn the militant and racist statements which disseminate hatred, because if they don't then they decrease the possibility of maintaining a peace.


Joseph d'Urso interviewed Shavarsh Kocharyan in Yerevan on 5 August 2013 for commonspace.eu

(c) commonspace.eu

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)